The 4-1-1 on 9-1-1
Ohio State Sen. Tom Patton wants to outlaw playing 9-1-1 emergency calls even though tapes of such calls are public record. In a Plain Dealer story on Jan. 10, Patton said he is still pushing for his bill (SB105), introduced last April,
to get new hearings in Columbus. Predictably, police and law enforcement groups support Patton’s bill to fine the media $10,000 for broadcasting 9-1-1 calls on air or online. First Amendment advocates such as the Ohio Newspaper Association and the Ohio Broadcasters Association oppose it.
Patton says, without proof, that broadcasting 9-1-1 tapes on radio, television or online makes crime witnesses reluctant to call police. He said he would commission a study to validate this claim. But Patton doesn’t need a lengthy and expensive study. He needs open dialog with journalists and the public in which all sides strive for tolerance and transparency. Tolerance on the part of the public and transparency on the part of the media.
Whether to use a 9-1-1 call is almost always an ethical dilemma for news
organizations. It’s true that calls can be frantic and disturbing when people report crime or trauma. But calls also reveal acts of heroism, like those of children who dial 9-1-1 to save incapacitated adults or dispatchers who help deliver babies. Callers who are emotional or distraught may contend that rebroadcasting their pleas is an invasion of privacy. Journalists, meanwhile, are saddled with the decision to air 9-1-1 calls conscientiously or not at all. But using tapes, even the most horrifying recordings, is preferable to banning them altogether. When taxpayer-supported services operate in secrecy, it’s the public that suffers.
To ease the disconnect between the audience and the media, journalists should explain how and why they’re using 9-1-1 tapes. These tapes add detail and perspective and help people understand how emergency responders do their jobs. Journalists should also cite responsible decision making in similar situations. For example, the names of rape victims and child suspects are now public record, yet most responsible media do not routinely report them. Public record also contains the names of suicide victims, yet most of these are not the subjects of stories. In fact, using suicide information is similar to using 9-1-1 tapes in that only those deemed newsworthy are reported. If journalists tell their audiences why a 9-1-1 call is newsworthy; that is, if they are transparent about their motives, journalists should be able to allay concerns without the need for legislation.
Take the case of Karla Gutierrez, a 32-year-old Florida woman who apparently fell asleep while driving in Florida in 2001. Her car landed in a roadside canal. Gutierrez called 9-1-1, calmly at first but later panic-stricken, saying many times: “My car is sinking.” For three-and-a-half agonizing minutes, 9-1-1 dispatchers tell her to stay calm. They do not tell her how to get out of a sinking vehicle. By the time police located tire marks and then the car under 30 feet of water, Gutierrez had drowned. The 9-1-1 recording of her call was available to the media that same day and at least one local television station
used big parts of it. Hearing the tape prompted public calls for better training for dispatchers.
That’s a good reason to use a 9-1-1 tape, though it undoubtedly was painful for Gutierrez’s family.
Without broadcasting such calls, no one would be held accountable for errors in dispatching or inadequate training. With public safety at stake, shouldn’t journalists broadcast or post 9-1-1 calls to help dispatchers and emergency personnel do their jobs? Or do their jobs better? Hearing how dispatchers respond to calls for help could prompt improved training or increased funding for emergency services.
According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, already more than a dozen states ban broadcasting 9-1-1 calls. Patton acknowledges that the calls are public record. He says they would remain public and that transcripts would still be available. But most people won’t seek these out on their own. Newspapers could still print transcripts, of course, but reading dialog isn’t the same as hearing it: urgency and emotion are lost.
Journalism practitioners recognize that it is the media’s responsibility to be
careful when using tapes of emergency recordings. That ethical responsibility must be left to the media. To legislate the use of 9-1-1 calls represents a serious erosion of free speech and free press rights. Journalists make difficult ethical decisions about whether to use sensational material because they understand that access to public records carries with it a significant level of responsibility and an equal level of public discomfort. The alternative, privatizing public records and punishing journalists, could present even more problems for the very public that denounces their use.
Leave a Reply